Saturday, March 14, 2009

Mr. Matthew Lankford has recently directed me to a post at the Reflexion Latina Reformada blog, where the blogger has provided some commentary on Francis Turretin and the Via Media, the "Middle Way" that is Reformed Theology (link). The post is in Spanish, although a Google translation may be found here (link).

Thursday, March 12, 2009

This is an index page for the electronic versions of "The works of Aurelius Augustine: a new translation," Edited by Marcus Dods. It was completed around 1876, so take the description "new" as a relative term. This obviously is not a complete translation of all of Augustine's works, but it is a good start for anyone who wants to get more familiar with Augustine's works at a low cost.

1. The city of God, v. 1. Translated by Marcus Dods. (Google)(Archive)

8. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages (Google)(Archive)

9. Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christian Literature; Commentaries of Origen (The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Visio Pauli, The Apocalypses of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Testament of Abraham, The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, The Narrative of Zosimus, The Apology of Aristides, The Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen's Commentary on John, Books I-X, Origen's Commentary on Mathew, Books I, II, and X-XIV)(Google)(Google 2)(Google 3)(Google 4)(Archive)

That is to say, is it permitted by the sources of authority of Catholicism for the members of Catholicism to pray to anyone beyond God, Mary, and the saints? For some background, James Swan has been discussing this issue at his own blog (Can you pray to whoever you want to?).

Book IV, Part II, Title IV governs "The Veneration of the Saints, Sacred Images, and Relics." The Title includes the following canons:

Canon 1186 To foster the sanctification of the people of God, the Church commends to the special and filial reverence of the Christian faithful the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God, whom Christ established as the mother of all people, and promotes the true and authentic veneration of the other saints whose example instructs the Christian faithful and whose intercession sustains them.

Canon 1187 It is permitted to reverence through public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed.

Canon 1188 The practice of displaying sacred images in churches for the reverence of the faithful is to remain in effect. Nevertheless, they are to be exhibited in moderate number and in suitable order so that the Christian people are not confused nor occasion given for inappropriate devotion.

Canon 1189 If they are in need of repair, precious images, that is, those distinguished by age, art, or veneration, which are exhibited in churches or oratories for the reverence of the faithful are never to be restored without the written permission of the ordinary; he is to consult experts before he grants permission.

Canon 1190 §1. It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics.

§2. Relics of great significance and other relics honored with great reverence by the people cannot be alienated validly in any manner or transferred permanently without the permission of the Apostolic See.

§3. The prescript of §2 is valid also for images which are honored in some church with great reverence by the people.

As you can see, a lot of the title is taken up with the issue of the idolatry of relics and images. For the issue at hand, the two relevant canons are 1186 (which promotes the veneration of Mary) and 1187 (which prohibits public veneration of non-canonical people).

Now, as a preliminary matter, from what I have read, there is no single global list in reality. Nevertheless, the basic of the idea is that "public veneration" of uncanonized/beatified people is not permitted.

Here's the question: can someone within Catholicism legitimately pray to (religiously venerate) just anyone?

The answer that is typically given in popular circles today is, "As long as you have a good faith belief that the person is in heaven, you can pray to them," or occasionally, "As long as you don't think that the person is in Hell, it's ok to pray to them."

The problem I have with that is two-fold:

1) Obviously, the Scriptures don't tell us that.

2) There does not appear to be any other authoritative source within Catholicism that tells people that they can pray to anyone other the canonized or the blessed.

Now, I can anticipate one argument:

Argument: "Since canon law doesn't prohibit it, as long as it is not 'public,' it's ok."

This is a sort of "if it is not prohibited, then it is permitted" mentality. I understand this mentality, but it does not seem consonant with other of Rome's canon law. For example:

Canon 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church.

So then, the question is whether this particular practice is, objectively, "consonant with the doctrine of the Church" or not.

I liken the arguments that because canon law doesn't specifically address it, people can do what they like, to the argument of the modernists (at Catholic Answers and elsewhere) against the historic practice of prayer veils, a practice clearly mandated in Scripture.

So, for now, I pose this as a question to my readers. What authoritative source out there tells you that you can pray (as Mr. Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers seems to think) to your dead mother, who has not been beatified and really has no real likelihood of being either beatified or canonized, ever?

-TurretinFan

For those who would prefer the main title discussed above in the authoritative Latin language (I think it still is the authoritative language in canon law) ...

P.S. Let me be clear about one other thing. It is wrong to religiously venerate anyone but God. This is a clear teaching in Scripture ("Him only shalt thou serve"). My question in the post, however, is not about that issue - but rather about one apparently unfounded practice that is prevalent in modern Romanism of religiously venerating folks that are not canonized saints, and have no immediate prospects of becoming such.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

This an index page for the “Ante-Nicene Christian Library” series, with Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors. This was later - in effect - replaced by the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" series, which I have index here (link to ANF). This could be considered another of the lesser patrologies, dwarfed by Schaff, but mentioned by him in his introduction (link). The Google and Archive versions offer different features. For downloading, though, the Archive versions are generally superior.

18. The Writings of Tertullian (Vol. 3) with the Extant Works of Victorinus and Commodianus. Translated by S. Thelwall (Tertullian), Robert Ernest Wallis (Victorinus and Commodianus). (Google)(Archive)

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The "Oxford Movement" headed by Drs. Pusey, Newman, and Keble (using the printer John Henry Parker) produced a series entitled, "A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West." It apparently spans 48 volumes, but is eclipsed by the more complete series produced by Philip Schaff. Nevertheless, many of the volumes appear to be free from copyright and have become publicly available. A list of the volumes, including further information, such as the number of pages of each volume, may be found at the following link (link).

4. Saint John Chrysostom. The homilies ... on the first epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. (Part 1 - Homilies 1-24)(1839) Translated by Hubert Kestell Cornish & John Medley. (Google)(Archive)

5. Saint John Chrysostom. The homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. (Part 2 - Homilies 25-44)(1839) Translated by Hubert Kestell Cornish & John Medley. (Google)(Archive)

6. Saint John Chrysostom. Commentary on Galatians, and homilies on Ephesians. (1840). Tr William John Copeland. (Google)(Archive)

17. Saint Cyprian, and Saint Pacian. The epistles of S. Cyprian...with the Council of Carthage, on the baptism of heretics. With the extant works of S. Pacian: 3 Epistles to Sympronian, Exhortation to Repentance, On baptism. (1844) Translated by H. Carey & C.H. Collyns. (Google)(Archive)

18. Saint Gregory the Great. Morals on the book of Job. Pt. 1 of 4. Parts I and II/Books 1-10 (1844). Translated by Anonymous (Charles Marriott?). (Google)(Google 2)(Archive)

26. Saint Augustine. Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, and his first Epistle. Pt. 1 of 2. Homilies 1-43, John 1-8. (1848) Translated by H. Browne. (Google)(Google 2)(Google 3)(Archive)

27. Saint John Chrysostom. The homilies on the Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (1848) Translated by J. Ashworth. (Google)(Archive)

28. Saint John Chrysostom. The homilies on the Gospel of St. John. Pt. 1 of 2. Homilies 1-41. (1848). Translated by G.T. Stupart. (Google)(Archive)

29. Saint Augustine. Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, and his first Epistle. Pt. 2 of 2. Homilies 44-124, John 9-21 and Homilies 1-10, 1 John (1849) Translated by H. Browne. (Google)(Google 2)(Google 3)(Google 4)(Archive)

46. Saint Athanasius. Later treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, with notes: and an appendix on S. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret (1881). Translated by William Bright. (Google)(Archive)

47. Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Five Tomes against Nestorius; Scholia on the Incarnation; Christ is One; Fragments against Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Synousiasts. (1881) Translated by Anon. (E.B.P.?) (Apparently not yet in Google)(Archive)

48. Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. Pt 2 of 2 (1885) Translated by T. Randell (Apparently not yet in Google)(Archive)

I should point out that the translations, especially in the first volumes tend to have an apologetic aim, and consequently should be taken with a grain of salt. (see also Schaff's comments) In particular, Newman's translations are suspect, as he shortly afterward left the Anglican church for that of Rome. Nevertheless, these 48 volumes may provide at least something from which an English-speaking reader can supplement Schaff's patrology on some points.

I should also note that the Archive pdf documents are generally better than the Google pdf documents, in that the Archive pdf documents often include searchable text. So, if you plan to download, you may want to consider using the Archive links.

Hopefully, this list will serve as a handy index for readers who wish to check on what the early Christian writers had to say in the selected works that were included in the "Library of Fathers" series.

Sunday, March 08, 2009

In a previous series (link to series index), we documented Steve Ray (and others) misquoting Athanasius (i.e. citing a spurious, or (at best) dubious, work as though it were authentic). Mr. Ray's inaccurate citations, though, are not limited to Athanasius. Mr. Ray also misquotes Gregory Thaumaturgus (Thaumaturgus means Wonderworker).

In particular, Mr. Ray quotes from a spurious Gregory Thaumaturgus work as though it were a genuine work. As recently as September 2008, Mr. Ray was promoting a word document that he put together a while back, in which he provides a list of alleged patristic quotations regarding "Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant." (source - note how the quotation he provides in the blog entry is that spurious Athanasius quotation that we already debunked - direct link to Ray's document).

This work has been known to be spurious for over a hundred years. The major translations of the church fathers, such as Schaff's compilation, include it in the "Dubious and Spurious" works section, and Schaff provides the following commentary on this work:

This very homily has been cited to prove the antiquity of the festival of the Annunciation, observed, in the West, March 25. But even Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work. The feast of the Nativity was introduced into the East by Chrysostom after the records at Rome had been inspected, and the time of the taxing at Bethlehem had been found. See his Sermon (a.d. 386), beautifully translated by Dr. Jarvis in his Introduction, etc., p. 541. Compare Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 164, and Justin, vol. i. p. 174, this series. Now, as the selection of the 25th of March is clearly based on this, we may say no more of that day. Possibly some Sunday was associated with the Annunciation. The four Sundays preceding Christmas are all observed by the Nestorians in commemoration of the Annunciation.

(emphasis added)

The "Pellicia" referenced is Alexius Aurelius Pelliccia/Pellicia (spelling was more fluid in those days), an 18th century patristics scholar. It was the scholarly consensus of that day that this is spurious writing, and nothing has changed to make us think that this work is authentic.

So, is Mr. Ray alone in quoting this way? No, it appears that this spurious citation has been used by many folks who appear to have picked it up from Mr. Ray. For example, I saw it used by Mr. Jay Dyer (link), who probably simply did not realize that his source of quotations was not trustworthy (and I assume he will correct this, once it has been brought to his attention, as he did in the past). A number of other people have likewise picked up the quotation, several giving attribution to Mr. Ray.

But where did Mr. Ray get it? Was it original research on Mr. Ray's part? No, of course not. Mr. Ray himself took it from a secondary source, Livius' quote-book, "The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries" (link to relevant page). I know this because Mr. Ray cites his source, and states at the beginning of his document, "Most of these quotations were found in a book long out of print: The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries written by Thomas Livius and published by Burns and Oakes in 1893."

Now, it is commendable that Mr. Ray identified his source, and it is understandable that Mr. Ray (not knowing the original languages or the Fathers' own writings) would rely on secondary sources. Nevertheless, Mr. Ray is promoted by organizations such as "Catholic Answers" as an apologist and as someone to be trusted. Thus, I hope Mr. Ray will take a cue from Mr. Dyer and fix his citations when it is brought to his attention that his source is spurious so that no more people will be misled.

Hopefully he will not again link his readers to some video that purports to defend(!) the mis-citation. Perhaps he will have the courage, in this instance, to admit that he simply cited to the work based on his misplaced trust in Livius, just as previously he cited to the spurious work attributed to Athanasius based on his misplaced trust in Gambero.

But, of course, it is not that simple. Mr. Ray should be aware that Livius himself, at page 2 of the author's preface, notes that he (Livius) will be citing in some instance from dubious and/or spurious works:

Another difficulty in the works of the early Fathers is that many of them are held to be spurious and unauthentic, whilst the genuineness of others is disputed. I leave the discussion in all cases to the judgment of learned critics. My general rule has been to make my quotations from writings the authenticity of which is commonly acknowledged. Sometimes, however, I have cited works of doubtful genuineness, or which, at any rate, were not written as we now have them by the Fathers to whom they are attributed, but whose date, as assigned to them by critics, falls within the first six centuries, to which period I confine myself. When I quote from a doubtful or unauthentic work, or depart exceptionally from this general rule, I note the fact.

Furthermore, Livius did (at page 47 - source) admit that "These homilies are of doubtful genuineness." (referring to the four homilies on the annunciation, of which the one Mr. Ray is citing is the first. Livius also tried to remind the reader of this lack of authenticity through the use of the fairly obscure indicator "Int. Opp." (presumably short for inter opera - among the works) that Mr. Ray copied when Mr. Ray copied the citation, but whose significance Mr. Ray does not appear to have appreciated, and certainly the average reader would not reasonably be expected to recognize that "Int. Opp." is a reference to the fact that Gregory the Wonderworker is not the real author of the quotation.

I realize this might have been hard for someone like Mr. Ray, untrained in patristics and unfamiliar with the church fathers, to figure out. I also understand that Mr. Ray is not a scholar, and I'm not trying (necessarily) to ask him to stop his pilgrimage profiteering to become familiar with the church fathers. I'm just exhorting him to be at least as honest as the "Women Priests" group who accurately cited Pseudo-Gregory as Pseudo-Gregory (link).

Surely Mr. Ray should be ashamed to be less accurate in his citations than one of the more liberal groups within his own sect. Will he fix his citation now that this has been brought to light? We will have to wait and see.

I had previously brought this issue to light in a blog entry on my own blog in May 2008 (link), and Mr. Ray continues to this day to cite the work as he does. And this cite appears to be his second favorite citation to make to the church fathers on the subject - it appears right after the Pseudo-Athanasius quotation in his paper on "Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant," (link to Word document version of paper).

I guess we can only hope that someone who knows Mr. Ray will persuade him to improve his scholarship at least to match the liberal segments of his sect. But - it could be worse! Mr. Danny Garland, Jr. misattributes this quotation to Jerome(!) (source), although his footnote does lead one back to the same place in Livius (where Jerome is the father cited immediately previously) as Mr. Ray has erroneously cited it.

Copyright Notice - (C) 2006-2011 TurretinFan

This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile.Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here.More